The
anti-interventionist movement, if we can refer to such an amorphous
creature, is at a crossroads at the start of this election season.
On the left, the remnants of the antiwar movement have been
dispersed and absorbed into the Democratic party, where they have
become foot soldiers for Obama — a President who has taken
up
the foreign policy of his immediate predecessor and injected
it with some pretty strongsteroids.
Left-wing antiwar activism has almost
disappeared
entirely, except for the marginal protests of a few Marxist-Leninist
grouplets. Indeed, some
on the left are even jumping on the interventionist
bandwagon,claiming the Western-backed Syrian rebels are really
Marxist “revolutionaries,” and not Osama bin
Laden-wannabees.

On
the right, the only significant anti-interventionist mass movement
in decades, the Ron Paul campaign, has been bushwhacked by the
Romneyites, who have taken harshadministrativemeasures
against Paul’s supporters and outright
stolen
a good number of their delegates to the Republican national convention,
ensuring that the Paulians will be kept in a well-guarded corral in
Tampa.

Ron
Paul’s campaign has been a lodestar for anti-interventionists
of the left as well as those on the right: it has inspired us,
heartened us, and given us that most essential fuel — hope.
Now it is giving us a lesson in how the political system in our
“democratic” country really works.

The
two-party system is playing the role it was designed for: to keep
the national discourse within “acceptable” bounds, and
make sure nothing too “radical” is presented to the
American public for their consideration. Aside from domestic issues,
what this means is that our foreign policy of perpetual war is not
up for debate: Romney’s straining
to define some significant difference between himself and the
administration on, say, Afghanistan, or Syria, underscores this
filtering process at work.

By
privileging
two state-sanctioned “parties,” the Democrats and the
Republicans, with automatic ballot status and government
subsidies,
the political Establishment has rigged the game, and nothing proves
this better than the experience of the Ron Paul campaign in the GOP
this past primary season. The Paulians played by the rules: they
organized at the grassroots level and got their people to the
various local and state conventions, where the real delegate
selection process took place. Highly organized, and dedicated to
their candidate and their cause, the Paulians showed up in record
numbers — and the Republican party bosses freaked out.

In
Louisiana they called the cops when they realized they had been
outmaneuvered, and they did the same elsewhere. They shut down
conventions and party caucuses rather than see delegates pledged to
Paul take the prize. In Maine, where Paul won fair and square, their
delegates are being
challenged — a challenge almost certain to be upheld by the Republican
National Committee and the credentials committee in Tampa.

If
the game is rigged, what is an opponent of the American empire to
do? Abstain from electoral politics?

No.
Intervening in major party politics is a valid strategy, one that can
be utilized to great advantage — provided it doesn’t
become an end in itself. While some Paulian operatives are hailing
the primary importance of achieving “mainstream
success,”
this oily phrase requires definition. What does it mean to succeed
in the “mainstream,” as opposed to simply succeeding? I
fear it means doing what Sen. Rand Paul has done: endorsing Romney
and pledging to campaign for him and his thoroughly authoritarian
and war-minded party.

Libertarian
and conservative anti-interventionists who take this road will find
themselves marginalized — not because their ideas are too
“extreme,” but because they will have become cogs in a
machine that is antithetical to their goals. We are told by some of Paul’s most prominent supporters — not Ron himself, however — that the Paulian movement needs to integrate itself into the GOP for an indefinite period.
While they never flat out say it the clear implication is that this
is to be a permanent “strategy”: we must liquidate the
“liberty movement” (they’ve stopped calling it
“libertarian”: sounds too radical) into the Republican
party, and if only we’ll turn ourselves into water boys for
Romney and his local clones we’ll have “proved”
ourselves such loyal servants of Power that we’ll “win”
in the end.

This
is being marketed as “practical politics,” while anyone
who raises an objection is smeared
as a “radical anarchist.” The irony is that this kind of
ostensibly “pragmatic” strategy is naïve to the
point of being infantile: the proof is in the treatment the Paulians
have received to date by the party leadership. They aren’t
going to let the Paulians win, no matter how closely they follow the
rules: when the old rules don’t work, they’ll revoke
them and make new ones. That’s what’s happening in Maine
and Massachusetts and Louisiana right now, as Paul delegates duly
and legally elected are kicked out and Romney drones put in their
place.

This
doesn’t mean Paul’s supporters need to retreat and leave
the GOP: what it means is that they have to fight — and not
capitulate. It means making a scandal of the Romney Machine’s
vote-stealing shenanigans and showing them up for the shameless
hypocrites they are: after all, this is a party that constantly
screams about “voter
fraud”
and is engaged in a nationwide campaign to keep people from voting
“illegally,” and yet their own leaders have engaged in a
systematic campaign of vote-stealing and outright vote fraud
throughout this entire primary season.

Anti-interventionists
in the GOP will never achieve “mainstream success” by
kowtowing to the Establishment and dutifully endorsing their
warmongering robot of a presidential candidate. Instead, they will
transform a generation of hardworking libertarian activists and
staunch anti-interventionists into platoons of yes-men (and
yes-women) who will take any insult, any betrayal, because “in
the long run” they expect to win. As they climb slowly up the
political ladder, and seek offices and support within the Republican
party, the “pragmatic” strategy is to downplay the most
controversial aspect of the Paulian ideology, opposition to the
ever-expanding American Empire. After years of arguing, “Oh,
we can’t talk about that, it’ll get Mitch McConnell
mad,” they’ll wake up one day, look in the mirror, and
discover they’ve become what they started out to oppose.

When
the “movement” is everything, the ostensible goals of
that movement are invariably shelved — “in the long run”
becomes never.
When the political careers of certain would-be leaders become the
measure of “mainstream success,” selling out becomes
only a matter of time — and, as we have seen, not very much
time at that.

There
is only one possible tack for Ron Paul’s supporters in the
Republican party to take, and that is irreconcilable opposition to
Romney, and to the neocon-dominated party leadership. This doesn’t
mean dropping out of the party: it means biding their time.

Paul’s
supporters should continue their guerrilla war against the GOP
leadership — yes, right up to the bitter end — and
dispute Romney’s brazen vote fraud and the party’s
disenfranchisement of its own grassroots activists. The best place
to do this is in Tampa, where a fight over credentials can be turned
into a cause
celebre.
I can see it now: the “Freedom Republican” delegation
from Louisiana demands to be seated, objecting to the ideological
segregation of libertarian Republicans and the denial of voting
rights to American citizens. It’s a story the mainstream media
will eat up: how’s that for “mainstream success”?

There
is but one way to ensure the “mainstream success” of
anti-interventionist activists in the GOP, and that is by
maintaining their political
independence.
Yes, a policy of irreconcilable hostility to the Romneyites will
isolate the Paulians for a while, but in the end, when the Romney
campaign implodes, and the GOP goes down to a well-deserved defeat,
they can be in the enviable position of being able to say “I
told you so.” In picking up the pieces, the libertarian
faction can achieve true “mainstream success.”

If
you’re going to infiltrate one of the two major parties in
order to inject anti-interventionism into the “mainstream,”
it has to be done with no illusions. The GOP is the Party of War:
militarism is the very core of its official ideology. Under George
W. Bush, the party attracted tens of thousands of pro-war fanatics,
the kind who, today, believe Saddam Hussein’s “weapons
of mass destruction” really did
exist,
and were somehow spirited
away.
They love
Israel more
than they love America — because, after all, the latter isn’t
specifically mentioned in the Bible. They support the PATRIOT Act,
indefinite detention of American citizens, and drone strikes, too —
they cheer when the neocons call for war with Iran, and they just
can’t wait until Obama is out of office so they can let the
world know Bush-ism is back, and with a vengeance.

Anyone
who expected Paulian anti-interventionists were going to be welcomed
into this kind of party is a fool. And certainly they were not
welcomed. The “solution” of some in the campaign was to
ditch the anti-interventionism, and just talk about how we have to
audit the Fed. If we just keep quiet about these “controversial”
issues, say the “pragmatists,” we can somehow sneak it
in later, when we’re in a better position to do so. However,
the problem with this “stealth anti-interventionism” is
that it didn’t work, because Ron himself kept
talking
about how we have to get rid of the Empire. Every question on
economic issues and the crisis of solvency was answered by him with
the suggestion that we just have to stop paying for all these wars
and then we’ll at least take a few steps back from the
brink of bankruptcy.

The
future of the political insurgency Ron Paul inspired is unclear, and
that is of the utmost importance to anyone who understands the need
for a broad-based antiwar movement in this country. If we look at
the long and distinguished history of antiwar activism in America,
what is clear is that, since the 1950s, the barricades have been
manned by a few dedicated pacifists and a few politically
idiosyncratic writers, as well as the minuscule Leninist sects.
There was a burst of antiwar activism in the 1960s, but this soon
petered out as the former New Leftists settled down to mortgages and
tenured positions in the universities. In
the age of Obama,
these same types are celebrating the “liberation” of
Libya and Syria, authoring learned treatises on the virtues of
“humanitarian” interventionism.

The
inspiring sight of thousands
of college students lustily cheering Ron Paul’s calls for
dismantling the Empire — this is the future of the actually
existing antiwar movement, if there is to be one. Paul’s
movement is just the latest in a whole series of developments that
have enabled anti-interventionists to establish a significant niche
on the intellectual Right for the first time since the 1940s. The
success of the Paul campaign was largely an expression of this
growing
tendency among conservatives.

A
new chapter is being written in the history of antiwar activism in
America, and we don’t yet know how it will end. What we can
know, however, is this: the leadership of any movement has to be
earned. It isn’t automatic, it isn’t hereditary, and its
authority is entirely derived from its fidelity to the original
message — the ideas that inspired many thousands to give their
time, energy, and money. Once those ideas are cast aside, or
corrupted, the excitement and idealism that generated all that
activity begins to die down — and the movement begins to
shrink, in numbers and in spirit.

It
is possible, of course, to fall into the opposite error, which is
sectarianism.
The sectarian disavows all alliances and satisfies himself with
showing up at a meeting, denouncing all present as tools of the
Establishment and Pawns of Mysterious Forces, and then sitting down
to nervous giggles. The Paulians showed their tactical flexibility
when they
united
with supporters of Santorum to ensure a level playing field at party
conventions.

Tactical
flexibility married to political independence and ideological
intransigence — these are the elements of a victorious
anti-interventionist strategy inside the GOP, or, indeed, inside any
party organization. These lessons are taught in the course of the
struggle, and it is hugely important the right lessons are
learned. In politics, as in life, nothing succeeds like success —
but whose
success, and at what price?

As
we stare down into the abyss of a major war in the Middle East, such
issues as whether or not to vote
for imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran
are matters of life and death. In times such as these, you are
either on one side of the barricades or you are on the wrong side.
It’s dangerous to straddle the fence when it comes to war:
you’re likely to get shot at by both sides.

It would be sad if Ron Paul supporters became just another band of village idiots for the establishment. People should support whoever is in Congress who has a good track record regardless of party. There is only one party and it is called the War Party. If the incumbent is awful then support someone who promises to have a good track record (after close scrutiny). There isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats beyond rhetoric. They tailor their message at targeted demographics. Reality no longer matters. It is all emotion now. Romney in his wooden way is using lies against Obama in order to appeal to the barbarians whose votes and money he needs in order to be elected.

This is one Paul supporter who thought Romney had some common sense and would not attack Iran which would surely be a disaster. Romney is such a liar that I find it hard to tell when he believes what he is saying. I just see no enthusiasm for either candidate. I live n a very Repubican area and have yet to see more then one Romney yard sign. If Romney loses all the new people that Ron Paul has trained will take over the party right away. If Romney wins I suspect he will be a massive flop who will destroy the old Party and it will be rebuilt by the young insurgents. Bush Didn't attack Iran, Obama, has not yet attacked Iran. Lets hope old lily livered Romnry doesn't either if he has the chance. I don't think he has the nuts to stand up to the military and intelligence chiefs who want nothing to do with an attack on Iran. I hope I am right. Another great essay Justin.

I view the federal US system of government as somewhat of a joke at this point. For all intents and purposes, it now seems to come down to obscure social policies and sizes of payouts to different special interests (interests which will get 'paid' no matter who wins, it is just a question of how big a piece of the 'pie' they will receive during any given election cycle)… The next thing you know, our foreign policy will essentially (seemingly) be determined by a debate over whether coastal federal wildlife refuges should be clothing optional mixed in with the usual cat-fight between the AFL-CIO and the Club For Growth…along with the usual singing, dancing buffoonery of the Presidential Candidates themselves…

I'm just waiting for the day a serious candidate for POTUS is shot out of a cannon wearing an American flag jump suit, holding sparklers, with a Raytheon airplane banner attached to his backside flapping behind him… It's not too far off; be that as it may, it will not matter anyway, as the choices are 'false' to begin with (especially when it comes to foreign policy). Difference in "tone" is not a difference in "policy"… Yeah…it's possible lightning could strike and a Ron Paul could get into office–which would last 4 to 8 years–but what would that ultimately accomplish in the long term? Hope for another such great 4 to 8 year run in the next 10,000 years or so?

I think the 'issues' are much more widespread and systemic than US Presidential, or even federal legislative, electoral politics…

Any successful anti-war movement in America must also be anti-Zionist. If you accept Zionism, you are also accepting its inherent ugliness of land-theft, racism, plunder and occupation, all of which lead to unending militarism. You can't be pro-America and pro-Israel at the same time; you can't be on both sides of a moral wall at the same time. The Democrats can't seem to afford to let go of Zionism and the GOP wants to embraces Zionism to its heart. I believe that only two things will bring a healthy attitude towards peace again to America – economic collapse or a humiliating military defeat. And it will be better to happen now rather than later.

At some point Ron Paul needs to go the third party candidate route. He's getting old and it might be his last and best hurrah. He lost a lot of votes in the primaries because most states don't have open primaries and Paul garners a lot of support from many outside the GOP.

Great article by Justin. Humanitarian imperialism, the title of Jean Bricmont's excellent little book, has demobilized much of the antiwar left although with Syria many are at last catching on.

The antiwarriors in the Republican Party should take a good look at the "Progressive" Democrats of America (PDA) which was to be an antiwar voice in the Dem Party. But PDA has ended up paying lip service to an antiwar position while in practice putting party over principle. Hence they did not mount a challenge to Obomba. De te narratur, to those in the Republican Party who are supporting Mitt.
P.s. The fact that Ron Paul had no antiwar equivalent in the Dem Party primaries suggests that the initiative and leadership of the peace movement has shifted to the Right.

Great article by Justin. Humanitarian imperialism, the title of Jean Bricmont's excellent little book, has demobilized much of the antiwar left although with Syria many are at last catching on.

The antiwarriors in the Republican Party should take a good look at the "Progressive" Democrats of America (PDA) which was to be an antiwar voice in the Dem Party. But PDA has ended up paying lip service to an antiwar position while in practice putting party over principle. Hence they did not mount a challenge to Obomba. De te narratur, to those in the Republican Party who are supporting Mitt.
P.s. The fact that Ron Paul had no antiwar equivalent in the Dem Party primaries suggests that the initiative and leadership of the peace movement has shifted to the Right.

Justin – I wish you could have sat in my shoes last week. In Arizona's congressional district 9 race, 8 republicans came to a fire house station to answer 20 prewritten questions by RP Patriots. One experienced Republican- Jon Kyl endorsed – talked to us about how he has improved on Ron Paul's medical free market plan. And to our surprise he did! He received a rounding applause. This only emboldens this poor fool to continue on the path of his "skilled thinking" on the issues to which not a clap was heard. Patriot Act? Yes parts were ok but he'd get rid of it. TSA? He hates it like 'us' but no other solution is found so we must live with it. Drones in the USA? Well they are a good idea on the border! National Id? My drivers license and social security card is all ready a national ID so I don't see the issue there. Mexican illegals taking away jobs? We've got to stop that and he doesn't mind ripping families apart. End the Drug War? Look I have driven the squad car around and seen first hand the damages that drugs do to families. AT THIS POINT the deafening quiet from the audience had taken its toll and he opened it up for questions. Mine was: "Are Black Markets a Bad thing for society? and "Why do you want to create Black Markets?" He droned on and gasps poored out from the audience. He "had time for" one more question. "You said in your opening statement that we must learn from our past. Knowing what you know now about Vietnam, would you agree that was a stupid war?" To which he said "yes" and droned on about "fighting it differently". Seven more candidates stood up before the 30 of us. We spared our applause for the rare times they said "Constitution" and "cutting spending" and "free trade" and we saved our questions to point out their hypocritical answers to the constitution, to cutting spending, to free markets. My point is that I don't think you have to worry one bit about the Ron Paul grassroots. They have put it all together. Moreover, they understand very clearly that the libertarian party is a failed "liberty advancing strategy". They are very clear on their direction. The big question is this, is there enough libertarians left to infiltrate the DNC as "Jefferson Democrats"? Ron Paul Republicans want to know, for their goal to infiltrate the 2 party duopoly hinges on Jefferson Democrats doing the same thing inside the DNC. (PS. webmaster, I could not sign in via facebook)

My point is that I don't think you have to worry one bit about the Ron Paul grassroots. They have put it all together. Moreover, they understand very clearly that the libertarian party is a failed "liberty advancing strategy". They are very clear on their direction.

The big question is this, — are there enough libertarians left to infiltrate the DNC as "Jefferson Democrats"? Ron Paul Republicans want to know, for their goal to infiltrate the 2 party duopoly hinges on Jefferson Democrats doing the same thing inside the DNC. Those happy REASON CATO types need to take action fast. Right now, they are all talk and no walk.

If the 2-party War Party is to be seriously & directly challenged, there MUST be a 2-party Liberty Party. Its time for "Jefferson Democrats" to step up and be counted. RP Patriots need a left-hook to their right-jab.

I think that most of you have it wrong – you can't first seize power and then do good; you must first do good and then seize power (actually you won't have to seize power, power is meaningless if no-one obeys it).. America is falling not because the right people aren't in power, it is falling because we are no longer a force for good. It disappoints me to see so many convinced that to do good, one must have power first. That is the path of "cheap" grace.

Why is there only Ron Paul on the right? Why not a freedom and liberty movement on the left, "too"? Where is the liberty and freedom movement in the independent circles? Why is there only one? If you want to shake up the empire, maybe it's time to really do it with just two words: liberty, freedom.
Just a thought.

1. True neocons believe that that the story of WMDs was a necessary pretext for the war in Iraq. A true neocon believes that preemptive war is justified by strategic geopolitical objectives. Imminent threats to national security are not a prerequisite. You are giving them too much credit.

2. Taking over the Republican party is a process that cannot be accomplished – like Scrooge's metamorphosis – in one night. Before we can oust the status quo from party leadership, we need to win more hearts and minds. The popular votes in the primaries were a pretty clear indication to me that the rank and file are warming to our positions, but aren't there yet. We need more time for our ideas to permeate the electorate. I am convinced that we will get there, but we must exercise some patience and some discretion along the way if we are to retain our place inside the party while we re-make it. It is a delicate balancing act, imo.

There will NEVER be a political solution to our current problems, no matter what kind of "strategy" the Ron Paul camp adopts. Most libertarians have come to recognize that politics is simply coercion by another means, another violation of the NAP, and that the entire process is built upon fraud and force. If we "operate within the system," as so many people (Justin included) keep telling us, nothing will result except co-option, marginalization, and failure.

No, the only way to change things is to expose continue exposing the system for the criminal fraud that it is and convince as many people as possible to withdraw their participation and consent from the political system altogether. Only be so de-legitimizing it will it collapse under the weight of its own fraudulent inertia. Yes, this is a long-term process, the fruits of which we might never see within our lifetimes. But continuing on the current course (i.e., banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall in a display of Einstein's definition of insanity) ensures that our posterity will never see change at all.

The current round of wars in the Near East began with the September 11 attacks. It therefore would be a good idea if the antiwar forces began to focus on the grave problems with the official US Government version of the September 11 attacks, and to demand a completely new investigation. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the antiwar forces refuse to do. Sooner or later, however, someone in public life is going to raise this issue, and then we are going to see a constitutional crisis over 9/11.

You all completely ignore former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who is the Libertarian candidate and is on the ballot in all fifty states.He is anti-war, pro drug legalization beginning with marijuana, ending the insane borrowing which sees us begging for China and others for 43 cents out of every dollar that we spend.

His solutions to the two war parties is to present the case for war to the Congress, you know, like it says in the US Constitution.

Johnson is a civil liberties stalwart, and has no trouble using the veto should the congress come up with more Patriot Acts and NDAAs.

He has a record, as a Republican, of being elected twice in a heavily Democrat state.

Johnson appeals to me as a Ron Paul supporter, and any contributions I make now go to Johnson, not Paul, who is basically out of contention after all of the Republican dirty tricks.

Infiltrate the Republican Party? How has that been working for you over the past 25 years?

And do you trust either Romney or Obama to appoint the next retiring SCOTUS judges? No thank you.

woodlandsguy,
You are right – we need a thorough investigation of the whole 9-11 incident. Which is why such an investigation will never happen. The Establishment presently has the story line it desires – that the 9-11 incident was all an unforeseen deed carried out by enemies of America and planned by some guy in a cave in Afghanistan who is now dead (tying up all loose ends). Any further revelations would be contrary to the desires of the Establishment and any antiwar movement that makes noise about 9-11 will be put-down by the Establishment, quickly and severely.

I don't know that I have a problem with sticking around the GOP in hopes of changing from within, as Raimondo seems to suggest, then suggest not. It seems a better tactic to me to take your votes and support elsewhere- Gary Johnson, for instance. He's pretty much aligned with Ron Paul on most issues and has more executive experience than Romney and Obama combined. Gary Johnson gets my vote.http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

I don't know that I have a problem with sticking around the GOP in hopes of changing from within, as Raimondo seems to suggest, then suggest not. It seems a better tactic to me to take your votes and support elsewhere- Gary Johnson, for instance. He's pretty much aligned with Ron Paul on most issues and has more executive experience than Romney and Obama combined. Gary Johnson gets my vote.http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

while anyone who raises an objection is smeared as a “radical anarchist.”

What's really interesting in the Beck video clip is, imho, was Beck's ferocious act of disobedience against the state over children not being able to have for profit lemonade stands. What did Beck do in defiance of the state apparatus who was undoubtedly were bearing down him, he had a fundraiser for the homeless. He failed to mention whether on not children will ever be able to have again a for profit lemonade stand.

Wow, Raimondo uncharacteristically misses the point big time on this one. The Republican Party was a means to an end for Paul. This in no way shape or form means the same for his supporters. Paul supporters owe no allegiance to Republicans and thus have a very easy path ahead of them. Vote for Gary Johnson. He is a legitimate contender who embodies Paul's philosophy to the letter. And I think it goes without saying that this is the way most Paul supporters will go without coaching.

Paul needed the Repbulicans for their national stage. Liberty minded voters have no such allegiance to the Republican party, especially considering how badly it has alienated them and Paul.

This article is much to do about nothing. Few if any Paul supporters consider it any type of moral dilemma to alienate the Republican party and vote for Johnson, whether or not he stands a chance of winning. This is the manner in which we will send our message loud and clear: by voting for Johnson and seeing Romney crushed. Then it will be the Republicans who come back to US, the true conservatives who never abandoned our principles. That or they will stick by their guns all the way past irrelevance and into history's dustbin. Where they won't be missed.

Paul supporters by and large will do the principled and honorable thing and vote for Johnson. Not in the interests of the Republican party, but in the interest of the true conservatism that the LP represents and this country so desperately needs. The compromised Republican Fascist party can die a thousand deaths for all I care. I've never cast a vote for them and never will.

Spot on. A broken system will not be fixed from within the parameters of that system.

What will bring the Republican Party quickly and apologetically back to the cause of liberty, is seeing 20-40% of their base vote for Gary Johnson and causing a CRUSHING defeat for Romney in the process.

Don't think like a mouse, think like a lion. Paul does. Not only is this the way to win, it will be the most satisfying too!

Why do you need an investigation? The science clearly indicates that nano-thermite was used. This means that the building was rigged with explosives beforehand, and its not hard to see that the people insisting on a totally different story are doing so because they were behind it.

What is your litmus test for truth? Scientific fact, or whatever some talking bobblehead on MSNBC tells you.

You have the facts. The WTC towers were brought down by explosives. Our government was the only ones with the occasion and ability to plant them. Case closed. The truth doesn't need validation from the TV. Accept the truth and use it to temper your judgement in the future. Start by never voting for a Republican or Democrat again. It IS that easy….

The TSA is Union,American Federation of Government Employees, and the democrats had made sure of it; so which of the candidates you have listed in your name, do suppose would be willing to get rid of them?

The broken political system will not be fixed from within the parameters of the system. What you are suggesting is fool's errand. Political parties are independent entities. They only survive by winning and will throw their support behind whoever stands the best chance of winning.

Elect Gary Johnson and BOTH parties will quickly get behind the cause of Liberty. Keep kowtowing to candidates like Romney and Obama, thinking some change is gonna come, and you will toil in futility forever. Stop thinking like a mouse. The libertarian party is sound in principle. Their failures are the direct result of PEOPLE suffering from this type of cowardly thinking. There is no precondition of allegiance to the existing 2 parties in this country. That is simply your brainwashing kicking in. I feel you are a long way from any real enlightenment (and thereby any real change) so long as you think this way. Sorry…

Justin, why no mention of Gary Johnson & the Libertarian Party? Johnson & Paul may not agree on everything, but that should not be the test. Currently, GJ is attempting to reach the 15% artificial floor to get into the debates. There is no doubt in my mind that the D&R monpoly will not allow GJ to suceed at this.. Third parties used to be invited into the Pres debates at much lower threshholds. This fact in itself shows how mch less freedom we now have than we used to.

(Comment Cont): I was interrupted befor finishing. I have since read Deuce's comment and he/she is right on the money. While reading your article, Justin, I started screaming – What about Gary Johnson!!! Is Ron Paul giving his movement the back of his hand in order to keep Rand in the party's good graces? If so, what a sad end to a great career! Is Rand the only reason why Dr Ron has not yet thrown his support to GJ? If he did so forcefully, the D&R fascists might not have a choice but to let GJ into the debates as the 15% threshhold would surely be reached. I, too, Justin, am very disappointed in your analysis. If the Libertarian Party is not supported by Dr Paul this time, I feel it will be too late in our descent into fascism.

BTW, my mail about tonight's town hall at http://www.garyJohnson2012.com went to conservative and to progressive friends.Libertarian is the only logical choice if we are ever to stop fighting among ourselves and slay the beast in Washington, D.C.

I have to disagree. The only real way to get the "attention" of the establishment is to make it clear that the establishment needs to either clean up it's act or become extinct. That is NOT going to happen if the Paul people stay and try to work within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is gaining people all the time and if the Paul people go there they will find a lot more in common than with the Republicans. If the Paul people go there it won't be long before they will start getting moderate democrats and Tea Party members joining their ranks and then they will be in the position to become the third largest party.

I read some years ago that the corporation that owns the rights to the debates is actually owned by the Democrat and Republican parties themselves. I have not verified that recently, but have no reason to doubt it. The League of Women Voters used to arrange it.

"The libertarian party is sound in principle."
This is a problem. People seem to want be coddled in their little self made barricades of the like minded; nobody is to leave their respective barricade ideas. You can belong to more than one barricade, but that is key, you must belong to one and tow a line for that group. There are no individuals allowed in the barricades. The barricades present a problem for honesty and principle. just my opinion.

Deuce, I read your other comment and could have not said it better. The only reason I can think of that Dr Ron has not yet endorsed Gary Johnson is because of Rand's senate career. If so, it is a sad end to a great career. With Dr Paul's endorsement, I don't see how the D&R monoploy can keep GJ out of the debates as any legiimate poll would have him over the 15% threshhold. Although he is trying, without Paul's endorsement, GJ has no chance to get in as the MSM treats him like he doesn't exist. I'd like to hear Justin's take on this as I am very disappointed in his analysis.

Unfortunately, Freedomcalls, any attempts to get GJ into the debates without Ron Paul's fervent support is a pipe dream. The D&J monopoly will ensure that some threshhold or another is not met, and they will stoop to any means to do so. The controlled MSM is in bed, so don't expect any help from them. Again, without Dr Paul's strong endorsement, GJ will not get in, and even the great man's support may not be enough. Either Ron Paul has something against GJ or he is protecting Rand's senate career.

[…] Ron Paul’s campaign has been a lodestar for anti-interventionists of the left as well as those on the right: it has inspired us, heartened us, and given us that most essential fuel — hope. Now it is giving us a lesson in how the political system in our “democratic” country really works. The two-party system is playing the role it was designed for: to keep the national discourse within “acceptable” bounds, and make sure nothing too “radical” is presented to the American public for their consideration. Aside from domestic issues, what this means is that our foreign policy of perpetual war is not up for debate: Romney’s straining to define some significant difference between himself and the administration on, say, Afghanistan, or Syria, underscores this filtering process at work. By privileging two state-sanctioned “parties,” the Democrats and the Republicans, with automatic ballot status and government subsidies, the political Establishment has rigged the game, and nothing proves this better than the experience of the Ron Paul campaign in the GOP this past primary season. The Paulians played by the rules: they organized at the grassroots level and got their people to the various local and state conventions, where the real delegate selection process took place. Highly organized, and dedicated to their candidate and their cause, the Paulians showed up in record numbers — and the Republican party bosses freaked out. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/07/31/nothing-succeeds-like-success/ […]

Correct, Freedomcalls. The monopoly parties themselves now control the debates. Can you spell CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! When the League controlled the debates, the threshhold was much lower. Hence, we used to see 3rd party candidates such as John Anderson and Ross Perot in the debates. The fact the the parties themselves set the rules and control entry shows how far from a democracy we have fallen. Also, the conventions have become extended commercials for the parties and are not worh watching.

Couldn't agree more Deuce. It is more important for the Ron Paul people to vote their philosophy and vote for Johnson than it is to try to defeat Obama. Many Dems are anti-war but it is unlikely that large numbers will defect to GJ. If Romney wins, it will be more war and, ultimately, national bankruptcy. This will also happen under Obama, although there may be a glimmer of hope that war with Iran might be avoided as at least Obama is not Bibi's yes-man. The best thing to happen, I think, is for Romney to be soundly crushed with GJ getting 15% of the vote, but the 15% will not happen without Paul's strong endorsement. The Neocon Repubs need to go the way of the Whigs.

Here I've been posting in support of Gary Johnson. but just listened to his totally lame performace at his Townhall with someone named Ann Stone. He let Stone do all the talking and the conversation never got beyond so-called women's issues. Nothing about war and peace. Please Gov Johnson, we wanted to hear what you have to say, not her. And next time I recommend you at least wear a tie.

That's correct. What politicians understand are votes. Especially when the vote is as close as it appears between the mainstream candidates. When Romney loses by 3% and Gary Johnson gets 8% of the vote, he will sure wish he had made himself more attractive to Libertarians by adopting more sound policies.

Of course, then one must be willing to let Obama win. Is there really another 4 years left in the old girl (US)? And is any recovery worth it?

I should think that fairly obvious. One cannot be a Democrat and at the same time reject its social mandate. It's like 80% of their platform. A social mandate is about the masses, not the individual and his/her liberty. They just don't go together.

Now, if one rejects war and embraces liberty… then you'd be a libertarian!

[…] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/07/31/nothing-succeeds-like-success/Related posts:Errant Code? It’s Not Just a BugWhy (was) Geithner in Germany?About the Federal Reserve Police"Tax Justice” Report Provides Renewed Justification for Offshore CrackdownReal Reason they Arrested Brandon Raub: Strip Him of His Right to Bear ArmsPhoenix Woman Ordered to Not Give Out Water in 112 Degree Heat Because She Lacked a PermitUS Elections: Far Worse Than IranMarc Faber on ET Now Sept 03, 2012Jim Rogers: India Economic Times Interview 03 Sept 2012Work Those Greeks! Advent of Modern Slavery?Al-Qaeda now a US ally in SyriaCan We Envision a World without a Central Bank?Digital Technologies vs. Truth SuppressionAs Predicted, Third Way Surges to Fore in Middle EastShould Advocates of Small Government Escape to Canada? This entry was posted in News Commentary and tagged Imperial Hubris, Military-Industrial Complex, New World Order, War & Peace by admin. Bookmark the permalink. […]

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].